penile prisoner

Again: People don't harp on a mere "bad sitcom" over and over again, unless it has affected them on a much deeper level than merely being "bad" in their opinion.[/qote]

Yes, they do. People criticise things because they don't like them all the time. It doesn't have to be affecting them on a deeper level.

If you being proud of your hypocrisy affects my case at all it strengthens it.

If I said, to a convicted murderer, 'You are an evil man for murdering that prostitute, Mr. Ripper,' and he replied, 'You fool! Your idiotic case ignores the fact that I was PROUD of disembowelling that whore!' only a lunatic would think that the accused had offered some kind of counter argument.

All of this requires knowledge.

It requires knowledge of your arguments and posting history, it doesn't require knowledge of the Big Bang Theory.

Again: People don't harp on a mere "bad sitcom" over and over again, unless it has affected them on a much deeper level than merely being "bad" in their opinion.[/qote]

Yes, they do. People criticise things because they don't like them all the time. It doesn't have to be affecting them on a deeper level.

If you being proud of your hypocrisy affects my case at all it strengthens it.

If I said, to a convicted murderer, 'You are an evil man for murdering that prostitute, Mr. Ripper,' and he replied, 'You fool! Your idiotic case ignores the fact that I was PROUD of disembowelling that whore!' only a lunatic would think that the accused had offered some kind of counter argument.

All of this requires knowledge.

It requires knowledge of your arguments and posting history, it doesn't require knowledge of the Big Bang Theory.

Last edited by PDH on Wed May 22, 2013 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Hopscotch

Oh, and DoctorStupid, thank you for your concern, but I really needed to hear directly from PDH, and I got confirmation for what I was talking about.

I will address the last part of your post, though:

DoctorStupid wrote:Last...just to add to the debate...and I hesitate saying this because of possible backlash (that's a lie, I love debating so I yearn for backlash)

It is fun, ain't it??

but I would even go as far as to say that a tiny pinch of "chick in her underwear" is actually appealing to most women. Not because I think that most females want to see naked chicks...but because they like to see sexually explicit things as well. Things that excite them. I think many women will see that scene and imagine themselves being eye-screwed by Chris Pine. Now of course, I'm not a woman, and this is a colossal assumption I'm making here (a theory really), but based on the many conversations about this topic I've had with my wife (this topic = sex in movies), who to me seems like a pretty typical woman, this is definitely the case for many.

I wouldn't make that claim, man. Just because one woman likes seeing underdressed women doesn't mean "many" of them do. Have you seen my thread about the "6 Stupid Superheroine Designs That Need Redesign, Stat!", in which a female artist bends over backwards to cover up every superheroine she was asked to redesign?? And the female writer of the article badmouths the near-nakedness of every female character up for redesign except her best buddy, Emma Frost?? That's the sort of thing that messes up your claim

Even MORE last, there's a good chance I'm being biased toward PDH's argument because his initial post was funny as hell with all the "That being said" incarnations. I enjoy a good read.

Well, I'm glad someone here can admit to being biased towards PDH not on the quality (or lack thereof) of his argument. Since many people here firmly believe that The Complainer Is ALWAYS Wrong, let's just say that you're not alone in that. But don't expect confirmation from them, though.

Hopscotch

Oh, and DoctorStupid, thank you for your concern, but I really needed to hear directly from PDH, and I got confirmation for what I was talking about.

I will address the last part of your post, though:

DoctorStupid wrote:Last...just to add to the debate...and I hesitate saying this because of possible backlash (that's a lie, I love debating so I yearn for backlash)

It is fun, ain't it??

but I would even go as far as to say that a tiny pinch of "chick in her underwear" is actually appealing to most women. Not because I think that most females want to see naked chicks...but because they like to see sexually explicit things as well. Things that excite them. I think many women will see that scene and imagine themselves being eye-screwed by Chris Pine. Now of course, I'm not a woman, and this is a colossal assumption I'm making here (a theory really), but based on the many conversations about this topic I've had with my wife (this topic = sex in movies), who to me seems like a pretty typical woman, this is definitely the case for many.

I wouldn't make that claim, man. Just because one woman likes seeing underdressed women doesn't mean "many" of them do. Have you seen my thread about the "6 Stupid Superheroine Designs That Need Redesign, Stat!", in which a female artist bends over backwards to cover up every superheroine she was asked to redesign?? And the female writer of the article badmouths the near-nakedness of every female character up for redesign except her best buddy, Emma Frost?? That's the sort of thing that messes up your claim

Even MORE last, there's a good chance I'm being biased toward PDH's argument because his initial post was funny as hell with all the "That being said" incarnations. I enjoy a good read.

Well, I'm glad someone here can admit to being biased towards PDH not on the quality (or lack thereof) of his argument. Since many people here firmly believe that The Complainer Is ALWAYS Wrong, let's just say that you're not alone in that. But don't expect confirmation from them, though.

Hopscotch

Ah, yet another thing you don't know: References to Shakespeare. He ain't exactly obscure, you know...

If you being proud of your hypocrisy affects my case at all it strengthens it.

You don't understand the concept of "hypocrisy", either. Good to know.

If I said, to a convicted murderer, 'You are an evil man for murdering that prostitute, Mr. Ripper,' and he replied, 'You fool! Your idiotic case ignores the fact that I was PROUD of disembowelling that whore!' only a lunatic would think that the accused had offered some kind of counter argument.

And now we see that you're getting even worse at making analogies, too! That one is COMPLETELY irrelevant! Pathetic!

I remind you, your entire case revolves around the piss-poor comparison that I'm just like "Jubilee" in getting angry about DiDio making fun of me like he apparently does about BBT. Like your current analogy, it's ridiculously flawed. Again, I enjoy the joke from BOTH sources, while the like of "Jubilee" whines and whines every time BBT is brought up.

It requires knowledge of your arguments and posting history

You don't even have THAT, since you don't even know that I love the fact that I pissed off Dan so much that he had to take a swipe at me. Again, I post about it REPEATEDLY.

"Knowledge is power"... and you're as weak as a snowflake. Even more easily melted, too.

Hopscotch

Ah, yet another thing you don't know: References to Shakespeare. He ain't exactly obscure, you know...

If you being proud of your hypocrisy affects my case at all it strengthens it.

You don't understand the concept of "hypocrisy", either. Good to know.

If I said, to a convicted murderer, 'You are an evil man for murdering that prostitute, Mr. Ripper,' and he replied, 'You fool! Your idiotic case ignores the fact that I was PROUD of disembowelling that whore!' only a lunatic would think that the accused had offered some kind of counter argument.

And now we see that you're getting even worse at making analogies, too! That one is COMPLETELY irrelevant! Pathetic!

I remind you, your entire case revolves around the piss-poor comparison that I'm just like "Jubilee" in getting angry about DiDio making fun of me like he apparently does about BBT. Like your current analogy, it's ridiculously flawed. Again, I enjoy the joke from BOTH sources, while the like of "Jubilee" whines and whines every time BBT is brought up.

It requires knowledge of your arguments and posting history

You don't even have THAT, since you don't even know that I love the fact that I pissed off Dan so much that he had to take a swipe at me. Again, I post about it REPEATEDLY.

"Knowledge is power"... and you're as weak as a snowflake. Even more easily melted, too.

Last edited by Herald on Wed May 22, 2013 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

penile prisoner

And now we see that you're getting even worse at making analogies, too! That one is COMPLETELY irrelevant! Pathetic!

I remind you, your entire case revolves around the piss-poor comparison that I'm just like "Jubilee" in getting angry about DiDio making fun of me like he apparently does about BBT. Like your current analogy, it's ridiculously flawed. Again, I enjoy the joke from BOTH sources, while the like of "Jubilee" whines and whines every time BBT is brought up.

How does this refute the point? Whether you enjoy the joke or not it doesn't change the fact that you are being openly mocked by DC creators because you whinge about them constantly.

If you can criticise something to that extent without being secretly offended then surely Twig can criticise BBT to a comparatively tiny extent without being secretly offended, as well. If Twig can't do that then neither can you.

You have not avoided the dilemma. Your counter-argument is irrelevant.

You don't even have THAT, since you don't even know that I love the fact that I pissed off Dan so much that he had to take a swipe at me. Again, I post about it REPEATEDLY.

Unfortunately, points don't usually become more relevant when you bring them up lots of times. They remain as poor as they always were.

It simply doesn't matter how proud you are of being insufferable. It wouldn't matter if you were the proudest person in the universe. What matters is that you spend more time whinging about DC than Twig does about the BBT. If the one is cause for inferring that a person is secretly offended for being the butt of the joke, then so is the other. OTOH, if pride serves as an excuse for you then it would also serve as an excuse for Twig.

You are trying to claim both that all X's are Y and that you are an X who is not a Y. This is a logical contradiction, I don't know how I can make it clearer.

And now we see that you're getting even worse at making analogies, too! That one is COMPLETELY irrelevant! Pathetic!

I remind you, your entire case revolves around the piss-poor comparison that I'm just like "Jubilee" in getting angry about DiDio making fun of me like he apparently does about BBT. Like your current analogy, it's ridiculously flawed. Again, I enjoy the joke from BOTH sources, while the like of "Jubilee" whines and whines every time BBT is brought up.

How does this refute the point? Whether you enjoy the joke or not it doesn't change the fact that you are being openly mocked by DC creators because you whinge about them constantly.

If you can criticise something to that extent without being secretly offended then surely Twig can criticise BBT to a comparatively tiny extent without being secretly offended, as well. If Twig can't do that then neither can you.

You have not avoided the dilemma. Your counter-argument is irrelevant.

You don't even have THAT, since you don't even know that I love the fact that I pissed off Dan so much that he had to take a swipe at me. Again, I post about it REPEATEDLY.

Unfortunately, points don't usually become more relevant when you bring them up lots of times. They remain as poor as they always were.

It simply doesn't matter how proud you are of being insufferable. It wouldn't matter if you were the proudest person in the universe. What matters is that you spend more time whinging about DC than Twig does about the BBT. If the one is cause for inferring that a person is secretly offended for being the butt of the joke, then so is the other. OTOH, if pride serves as an excuse for you then it would also serve as an excuse for Twig.

You are trying to claim both that all X's are Y and that you are an X who is not a Y. This is a logical contradiction, I don't know how I can make it clearer.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Hopscotch

The only reason we are arguing is because he was still desperate to get smoked from a previous discussion. I knew he didn't really have a case, especially since he didn't know ANYthing about the subject. I saw that I'd be fighting a battle of wits against an unarmed man, which is why I didn't bother engaging him at the time. And surprise, surprise, actually attempting that argument now has only proved what I had already concluded then.

Since he clearly has no idea what he's talking about, I'll take the win and end this thing. I will address one thing in his post, though:

The only reason we are arguing is because he was still desperate to get smoked from a previous discussion. I knew he didn't really have a case, especially since he didn't know ANYthing about the subject. I saw that I'd be fighting a battle of wits against an unarmed man, which is why I didn't bother engaging him at the time. And surprise, surprise, actually attempting that argument now has only proved what I had already concluded then.

Since he clearly has no idea what he's talking about, I'll take the win and end this thing. I will address one thing in his post, though:

penile prisoner

It's best not to think too hard about it. Gaze too long into the Herald and the Herald gazes into you.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."

Inhouser

Herald wrote:So you ARE saying that "nearly naked woman!" = "pandering to male nerds". Thank you for confirming that and proving me right.

This demonstrates that I DID "stick to what [you] actually said". The only question left here is, are YOU listening to yourself??

Totally flawed logic, I say. I will add a hypothetical sentence to the end of PDH's sentence to illustrate how what he said does not in any way state that "pandering to male nerds" exclusively means "nearly naked woman".

"I didn't claim that the movie was not pandering to male nerds. I think that it was with that scene at least. I also think it was pandering to male nerds when Spock yelled, 'KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!'"

Just because he said that the scene in question is a form of pandering to male nerds doesn't in any way suggest that it's the ONLY form. You must post a PDH quote that says it is exclusive. There is none, however, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Not one I picked up on at least.

Herald wrote:I wouldn't make that claim, man. Just because one woman likes seeing underdressed women doesn't mean "many" of them do. Have you seen my thread about the "6 Stupid Superheroine Designs That Need Redesign, Stat!", in which a female artist bends over backwards to cover up every superheroine she was asked to redesign?? And the female writer of the article badmouths the near-nakedness of every female character up for redesign except her best buddy, Emma Frost?? That's the sort of thing that messes up your claim

Totally not what I said. In fact, I literally said that most females do not want to see naked chicks. (My wife included.) See below...

Not because I think that most females want to see naked chicks...but because they like to see sexually explicit things as well. Things that excite them.

Women are just as much human beings as men are. They have an inherent want and need for sexual excitement as well. I don't think they want to see the same things men do, however. We want to see the obvious stuff like actual sex and bare boobies. They are more interested in emotional connections in movies, and in that scene, there was sexual tension between the two characters. That sexual tension is what I believe would be a draw for many women. Also, your example of the superheroine redesign is relevant, but it's hardly proof. You are referencing a single woman. In fact, even if you reference 1,000 articles it still is only a tiny fraction of the view of the masses. A poor sample really. Just like me citing my wife is a poor sample. The reality is, no one can speak for the masses. What you hear on TV or read in articles and blogs...those are the loud people, not the average people. Especially when it comes to a more taboo topic like this. For example, if we were straight up suggesting that most females love to see naked chicks in movies, how many females do you think would openly admit it? Sure, there would be some, but most would keep quiet or just flat out deny it, I imagine. So I suppose, after reading my own argument, I am concluding that it's a silly thing to try to prove (one way or the other), and I still firmly stand by my theory simply out of pride and an inability to give up so early in a debate. (Don't mistaken that as a backwards way of saying that I think I'm wrong either.) =D

Herald wrote:Well, I'm glad someone here can admit to being biased towards PDH not on the quality (or lack thereof) of his argument. Since many people here firmly believe that The Complainer Is ALWAYS Wrong, let's just say that you're not alone in that. But don't expect confirmation from them, though.

Ha! Just to clarify, I was only kidding around. I really do think his argument is pretty sound. You do make some good points as well, I think, but a lot of your statements are pretty soaked with sarcasm and perhaps a little disdain, so it's difficult to weed through them. I would say that maybe this is the reason that people tend to side against you. Maybe their bias isn't blindly toward PDH...it could be blind bias against you. Most people don't take as well to arguments with an angry undertone. I can't really say whether that's true or not though...I barely know any of you guys yet so I'm the worst person to make any assessments here. This is just based on the last several posts.

Herald wrote:It is fun, ain't it??

Absolutely! WOOOOO!!!!!!!!! *punches the nearest Outhouser in the face and throws a table over*

Inhouser

Herald wrote:So you ARE saying that "nearly naked woman!" = "pandering to male nerds". Thank you for confirming that and proving me right.

This demonstrates that I DID "stick to what [you] actually said". The only question left here is, are YOU listening to yourself??

Totally flawed logic, I say. I will add a hypothetical sentence to the end of PDH's sentence to illustrate how what he said does not in any way state that "pandering to male nerds" exclusively means "nearly naked woman".

"I didn't claim that the movie was not pandering to male nerds. I think that it was with that scene at least. I also think it was pandering to male nerds when Spock yelled, 'KHAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!'"

Just because he said that the scene in question is a form of pandering to male nerds doesn't in any way suggest that it's the ONLY form. You must post a PDH quote that says it is exclusive. There is none, however, as I mentioned in my earlier post. Not one I picked up on at least.

Herald wrote:I wouldn't make that claim, man. Just because one woman likes seeing underdressed women doesn't mean "many" of them do. Have you seen my thread about the "6 Stupid Superheroine Designs That Need Redesign, Stat!", in which a female artist bends over backwards to cover up every superheroine she was asked to redesign?? And the female writer of the article badmouths the near-nakedness of every female character up for redesign except her best buddy, Emma Frost?? That's the sort of thing that messes up your claim

Totally not what I said. In fact, I literally said that most females do not want to see naked chicks. (My wife included.) See below...

Not because I think that most females want to see naked chicks...but because they like to see sexually explicit things as well. Things that excite them.

Women are just as much human beings as men are. They have an inherent want and need for sexual excitement as well. I don't think they want to see the same things men do, however. We want to see the obvious stuff like actual sex and bare boobies. They are more interested in emotional connections in movies, and in that scene, there was sexual tension between the two characters. That sexual tension is what I believe would be a draw for many women. Also, your example of the superheroine redesign is relevant, but it's hardly proof. You are referencing a single woman. In fact, even if you reference 1,000 articles it still is only a tiny fraction of the view of the masses. A poor sample really. Just like me citing my wife is a poor sample. The reality is, no one can speak for the masses. What you hear on TV or read in articles and blogs...those are the loud people, not the average people. Especially when it comes to a more taboo topic like this. For example, if we were straight up suggesting that most females love to see naked chicks in movies, how many females do you think would openly admit it? Sure, there would be some, but most would keep quiet or just flat out deny it, I imagine. So I suppose, after reading my own argument, I am concluding that it's a silly thing to try to prove (one way or the other), and I still firmly stand by my theory simply out of pride and an inability to give up so early in a debate. (Don't mistaken that as a backwards way of saying that I think I'm wrong either.) =D

Herald wrote:Well, I'm glad someone here can admit to being biased towards PDH not on the quality (or lack thereof) of his argument. Since many people here firmly believe that The Complainer Is ALWAYS Wrong, let's just say that you're not alone in that. But don't expect confirmation from them, though.

Ha! Just to clarify, I was only kidding around. I really do think his argument is pretty sound. You do make some good points as well, I think, but a lot of your statements are pretty soaked with sarcasm and perhaps a little disdain, so it's difficult to weed through them. I would say that maybe this is the reason that people tend to side against you. Maybe their bias isn't blindly toward PDH...it could be blind bias against you. Most people don't take as well to arguments with an angry undertone. I can't really say whether that's true or not though...I barely know any of you guys yet so I'm the worst person to make any assessments here. This is just based on the last several posts.

Herald wrote:It is fun, ain't it??

Absolutely! WOOOOO!!!!!!!!! *punches the nearest Outhouser in the face and throws a table over*

penile prisoner

Herald wrote:The only reason we are arguing is because he was still desperate to get smoked from a previous discussion. I knew he didn't really have a case, especially since he didn't know ANYthing about the subject. I saw that I'd be fighting a battle of wits against an unarmed man, which is why I didn't bother engaging him at the time. And surprise, surprise, actually attempting that argument now has only proved what I had already concluded then.

Since he clearly has no idea what he's talking about, I'll take the win and end this thing. I will address one thing in his post, though:

*facepalm*

"Lord, what FOOLS these mortals be!"

I'm sorry, I do apologise.

Shall I compare thee to a broken clock?Thou art more stubborn, though less right.For twice a day the clock shall tick and tock,In time whilst thou art always full of shite.Or to, perhaps, a broken record, then?Which drones a tedious, obnoxious song,To baffle and annoy us all again,With a tune both kind of sad and wrong.It matters not to what thou art compared,For at least a broken clock or record copes,With far less whinging and more wisdom spared,And without a million links to TVTropes.So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,So long thou wilt complain about DC.

penile prisoner

Herald wrote:The only reason we are arguing is because he was still desperate to get smoked from a previous discussion. I knew he didn't really have a case, especially since he didn't know ANYthing about the subject. I saw that I'd be fighting a battle of wits against an unarmed man, which is why I didn't bother engaging him at the time. And surprise, surprise, actually attempting that argument now has only proved what I had already concluded then.

Since he clearly has no idea what he's talking about, I'll take the win and end this thing. I will address one thing in his post, though:

*facepalm*

"Lord, what FOOLS these mortals be!"

I'm sorry, I do apologise.

Shall I compare thee to a broken clock?Thou art more stubborn, though less right.For twice a day the clock shall tick and tock,In time whilst thou art always full of shite.Or to, perhaps, a broken record, then?Which drones a tedious, obnoxious song,To baffle and annoy us all again,With a tune both kind of sad and wrong.It matters not to what thou art compared,For at least a broken clock or record copes,With far less whinging and more wisdom spared,And without a million links to TVTropes.So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,So long thou wilt complain about DC.

And also, doth mother know thou wearest her drapes?

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."